Hey look! The job loss started to come to a stop in April and May, yet the unemployment rate still went up! Now compare that to what would have happened had the March job loss rate continued.

March -3.......6%
April -3.......9%
May -3.......12%

Ouchies. Way higher unemployment.

Now do you understand how you can reduce the net loss of jobs but still cumulatively get higher unemployment? It's just not as high as it could have been. And folks, that's saving jobs. I'm not surprised that the right wing doesn't understand that the word "greater" doesn't just mean "more positive" but also "less negative".

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Hey look! The job loss started to come to a stop in April and May, yet the unemployment rate still went up! Now compare that to what would have happened had the March job loss rate continued.

March -3.......6%
April -3.......9%
May -3.......12%

Ouchies. Way higher unemployment.

Now do you understand how you can reduce the net loss of jobs but still cumulatively get higher unemployment? It's just not as high as it could have been. And folks, that's saving jobs. I'm not surprised that the right wing doesn't understand that the word "greater" doesn't just mean "more positive" but also "less negative".

Sounds a lot like how you debunk the argument of having to pay for a tax cut...

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Sounds a lot like how you debunk the argument of having to pay for a tax cut...

Not really. You have revenues and expenditures. Whether you increase expenditures or decrease revenues, you're going to get a shortfall. And unless you are willing to eat that shortfall, you need to figure out some way to make up the difference...you know, pay for it?

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

All the data shows how dismal job losses were in 2008. A year in which we were told: "The US economy is sound" by our president. It also clearly demonstrates significant reduction of job losses in 2009.

I am not sure what you are trying to show.

That unemployment can't really be going down.

Quote:

Bush was the worst president ever for employment? You have clearly demonstrated this.

That graph shows only the last year or so of the Bush admin. The jobless rate was quite low for the majority of his Presidency.

Quote:

Tax cuts eliminate jobs? Very well demonstrated.

Please explain how this happens.

Quote:

Do you believe the numbers of 2008 or do you think all the numbers are made up by the right wing to show how terrible they are on jobs?

That doesn't even make sense. If you have a problem with the data, demonstrate why its wrong.

Quote:

Do you believe presidents have no influence on these numbers?

They do, at least indirectly. Of course, this means that the Obama Admin has likely been playing with the unemployment rate--making it look lower than it is.

Quote:

Do you believe tax cuts for the richest of the rich had no influence on these numbers?
God doesn't like conservatives?

Tax cuts for the "richest" Americans had absolutely no impact, actually. In addition, many others got significant tax relief over the decade, so kindly put away the "tax cuts only for the rich" line. Finally, it's been shown that tax cuts at the top do work to stimulate the economy. Thats because it lessens the burden on the job creators, mostly small businesses and even private employers. I think that you would do well to ask yourself if you ever got a job from a poor person.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

Hey look! The job loss started to come to a stop in April and May, yet the unemployment rate still went up! Now compare that to what would have happened had the March job loss rate continued.

March -3.......6%
April -3.......9%
May -3.......12%

Ouchies. Way higher unemployment.

Now do you understand how you can reduce the net loss of jobs but still cumulatively get higher unemployment? It's just not as high as it could have been. And folks, that's saving jobs. I'm not surprised that the right wing doesn't understand that the word "greater" doesn't just mean "more positive" but also "less negative".

First, there is NO evidence that Obama's actions have made the situation better than it would have been. That is yet another Democratic talking point--"if we hadn't acted, we'd be in a depression! We saved the economy!" Of course, there is no evidence of this. The real "saving" of the economy was, if anything, due to TARP--a program instituted under the Bush admin.

As for job loss and unemployment: There have been some jobs "saved" as a result of the stimulus. These include state and federal workers, where money was distributed to keep governments afloat. However, there have been exactly zero jobs created by the stimulus, because the government doesn't create jobs. The private sector create jobs, especially ones that add to the nation's productivity. Any money that was given to the private sector to create jobs will or has run out, meaning they weren't real jobs to begin with.

We can go back and forth all day. The bottom line is that this administration has done little to nothing that has been effective in the area of employment.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

First, there is NO evidence that Obama's actions have made the situation better than it would have been. That is yet another Democratic talking point--"if we hadn't acted, we'd be in a depression! We saved the economy!" Of course, there is no evidence of this. The real "saving" of the economy was, if anything, due to TARP--a program instituted under the Bush admin.

As for job loss and unemployment: There have been some jobs "saved" as a result of the stimulus. These include state and federal workers, where money was distributed to keep governments afloat. However, there have been exactly zero jobs created by the stimulus, because the government doesn't create jobs. The private sector create jobs, especially ones that add to the nation's productivity. Any money that was given to the private sector to create jobs will or has run out, meaning they weren't real jobs to begin with.

We can go back and forth all day. The bottom line is that this administration has done little to nothing that has been effective in the area of employment.

So you are saying that the president has a real impact on the economy (with TARP). That can only mean that he also is responsible for what happened before TARP. You are confirming that those massive job losses were indeed 100% Bush's making. I agree with you.

If private companies get government contracts like in 100% of road work and utility contracts how do you title these jobs?

First, there is NO evidence that Obama's actions have made the situation better than it would have been. That is yet another Democratic talking point--"if we hadn't acted, we'd be in a depression! We saved the economy!" Of course, there is no evidence of this. The real "saving" of the economy was, if anything, due to TARP--a program instituted under the Bush admin.

As for job loss and unemployment: There have been some jobs "saved" as a result of the stimulus. These include state and federal workers, where money was distributed to keep governments afloat. However, there have been exactly zero jobs created by the stimulus, because the government doesn't create jobs. The private sector create jobs, especially ones that add to the nation's productivity. Any money that was given to the private sector to create jobs will or has run out, meaning they weren't real jobs to begin with.

We can go back and forth all day. The bottom line is that this administration has done little to nothing that has been effective in the area of employment.

So TARP worked, the stimulus didn't. No jobs were saved. We're a heathen country. Just making sure I got your viewpoints down.

So, had those automakers been allowed to completely fail, think the remaining workers who survived the first rounds of layoffs would still have jobs? Think the banks who would have failed would have magically kept paying their employees? Agree or disagree with the idea of saving these companies, but being all silly and putting saved in quotes and italicizing "some" and claiming no private sector jobs were saved is absurd. Utterly absurd.

I was going to say Hyperbole and try to figure out how to make you pronounce it with an upward lilt, but it doesn't really work very well over this medium. Instead, BOOM, HEADSHOT to your ridiculous assertion.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Hey look! The job loss started to come to a stop in April and May, yet the unemployment rate still went up! Now compare that to what would have happened had the March job loss rate continued.

March -3.......6%
April -3.......9%
May -3.......12%

Ouchies. Way higher unemployment.

Now do you understand how you can reduce the net loss of jobs but still cumulatively get higher unemployment? It's just not as high as it could have been. And folks, that's saving jobs. I'm not surprised that the right wing doesn't understand that the word "greater" doesn't just mean "more positive" but also "less negative".

Use the numbers from the DOL site. With initial claims rising, no decrease in folks receiving unemployment, where are the numbers explaining LESS jobs being lost?

Use DOL numbers and just focus on April and May, 2009. No imaginary numbers please...

You know, the liberals are the ones being hit the hardest by the job situation. I'd have figured they would be more interested in the lies in the shape of pretty colors on a graph with no apparent basis in reality.

You posted a graph. I helped you interpret it because you were doing so incorrectly.

Now as for those numbers you posted...continued claims rose roughly 800,000 from April to the end of May. However, initial claims were steady at roughly 630,000ish. So, 5,670,000 new claims from April to the end of May. Which means that since the continued claims only rose by 800k, 4.9 million people left unemployment in those two months as well. That's 545,000ish people leaving unemployment every week as 630,000 added on. Whether they were kicked off because they ran out of time or found new jobs, that's not accounted for in those figures you posted. So, a net unemployment gain of 85,000ish per week during the height of the recession. Ok. What's your point?

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

You posted a graph. I helped you interpret it because you were doing so incorrectly.

Now as for those numbers you posted...continued claims rose roughly 800,000 from April to the end of May. However, initial claims were steady at roughly 630,000ish. So, 5,670,000 new claims from April to the end of May. Which means that since the continued claims only rose by 800k, 4.9 million people left unemployment in those two months as well. That's 545,000ish people leaving unemployment every week as 630,000 added on. Whether they were kicked off because they ran out of time or found new jobs, that's not accounted for in those figures you posted. So, a net unemployment gain of 85,000ish per week during the height of the recession. Ok. What's your point?

Obama's graph is claiming that job losses in 2009 went from about 750,000 when Obama took office to essentially a job recovery a year later at about 20,000 in 2010. They use the Department of Labor statistics as their source.

There isn't any job recovery in the unemployment numbers. None. The graph is just an attempt to blame Bush for Obama's administration's failure to do anything to improve the job situation, and they made up the numbers to make their case.

Obama's graph is claiming that job losses in 2009 went from about 750,000 when Obama took office to essentially a job recovery a year later at about 20,000 in 2010. They use the Department of Labor statistics as their source.

There isn't any job recovery in the unemployment numbers. None. The graph is just an attempt to blame Bush for Obama's administration's failure to do anything to improve the job situation, and they made up the numbers to make their case.

You gave me numbers from 2 months in 2009.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

Hey look! The job loss started to come to a stop in April and May, yet the unemployment rate still went up! Now compare that to what would have happened had the March job loss rate continued.

March -3.......6%
April -3.......9%
May -3.......12%

Ouchies. Way higher unemployment.

Now do you understand how you can reduce the net loss of jobs but still cumulatively get higher unemployment? It's just not as high as it could have been. And folks, that's saving jobs. I'm not surprised that the right wing doesn't understand that the word "greater" doesn't just mean "more positive" but also "less negative".

The problems with your analogy are multiple. First the stimulus was guaranteed to have a specific limiting effect. No one ever claimed that the jobless rate would just continue increasing forever until it reached 100% unemployment. His graph showed two results, and the point of the stimulus was the bend the curve down and lessen the pain.

Thus it ISN'T saving jobs. To use your own example Obama spent $787 billion dollars to make March and April -0 and -0 to limit the unemployment rate to 8%. Instead they preceded exactly as predicted WITHOUT the stimulus. -2 and -1 which gave us the rate much higher than 8%.

You remove the politics and this would be easy to see. It is straight cause and effect. The reason the Obama graph is dishonest is because no one predicted a recession going on forever with unemployment rising forever. Recovery was predicted for 2010 even WITHOUT the stimulus. A lessening in the rate of unemployment was predicted for 2010 even WITHOUT the stimulus. The stimulus was supposed to bend the curve down and it did not do that.

Here is that wonderful and recently updated graph that myself and others have posted several times. The red dots were added and the pastels are of course from the Obama administration.

Please make a note to yourself that we are exactly in the part of the graph where, as predicted by the Obama administration without the stimulus, unemployment would level out.

The stimulus did not bend the curve down as promised. It did not limit unemployment. A mere lowering of initial job losses was going to happen regardless. Anyone claiming otherwise, including the Obama administration, is simply lying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

So TARP worked, the stimulus didn't. No jobs were saved. We're a heathen country. Just making sure I got your viewpoints down.

So, had those automakers been allowed to completely fail, think the remaining workers who survived the first rounds of layoffs would still have jobs? Think the banks who would have failed would have magically kept paying their employees? Agree or disagree with the idea of saving these companies, but being all silly and putting saved in quotes and italicizing "some" and claiming no private sector jobs were saved is absurd. Utterly absurd.

I was going to say Hyperbole and try to figure out how to make you pronounce it with an upward lilt, but it doesn't really work very well over this medium. Instead, BOOM, HEADSHOT to your ridiculous assertion.

The people still have skills. The companies would have still had assets. The companies would have been repurchased and been freed of their union contracts. There is no truly lucrative job that is government financed. Just like the houses that were overvalued were given back to the banks and are being revalued at market rates. (Although there is still distortions here as well thanks to interest rates, government tax credits for purchasing, etc.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

You posted a graph. I helped you interpret it because you were doing so incorrectly.

Now as for those numbers you posted...continued claims rose roughly 800,000 from April to the end of May. However, initial claims were steady at roughly 630,000ish. So, 5,670,000 new claims from April to the end of May. Which means that since the continued claims only rose by 800k, 4.9 million people left unemployment in those two months as well. That's 545,000ish people leaving unemployment every week as 630,000 added on. Whether they were kicked off because they ran out of time or found new jobs, that's not accounted for in those figures you posted. So, a net unemployment gain of 85,000ish per week during the height of the recession. Ok. What's your point?

So to summarize again, no one ever predicted the recession going on forever and unemployment rising forever. The predictions with regard to those are following the same path (though with much higher unemployment) as predicted with NO STIMULUS. The stimulus was supposed to bend the curve down and start us back to lowered unemployment faster than what has occurred. Thus it has completely and utterly failed by every possible measure.

I'm guessing you're saying we can't get out of this economic downturn by spending. Tell that to the people who were around during WWII. Besides we're talking about the downturn. That you can get out of by increased spending. For the debt question we have to do what we did last time and tighten our belts and pay for things. That can only happen after we get out of the recession. Two different things.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I'm guessing you're saying we can't get out of this economic downturn by spending. Tell that to the people who were around during WWII. Besides we're talking about the downturn. That you can get out of by increased spending. For the debt question we have to do what we did last time and tighten our belts and pay for things. That can only happen after we get out of the recession. Two different things.

No, I'm saying you cannot spend your way out of debt. We have no money to spend. It is impossible to spend money you don't have.

If you create the money out of thin air (which is illegal for everyone but the government, for some reason), then you devalue the money. That means you have to spend more of it...meaning you have to print more of it...meaning you have to go into more debt.

Why don't you just admit the numbers don't support the assertions on the graph and stop disagreeing?

I feel like I'm dealing with a belligerent physics student who doesn't understand how the speed of an object dropped above the surface of water and then sinking in water increases speed the entire way down to the bottom. While above the water, (ignoring aerodynamic effects), the object will have the acceleration of gravity. The speed increases every moment it falls. Entering the water, the acceleration drops due to the buoyant force opposing the gravitational force. However, there is still a downward acceleration and thus the speed increases, albeit at a slower pace.

You said you couldn't understand how that graph you posted meshed with an increasing unemployment rate. You are making the mistake thinking that the speed of the object will decrease upon entering the water. The speed doesn't decrease. The acceleration does.

“The nitrogen in our DNA, the calcium in our teeth, the iron in our blood, the carbon in our apple pies were made in the interiors of collapsing stars. We are made of starstuff.” -Sagan

I feel like I'm dealing with a belligerent physics student who doesn't understand how the speed of an object dropped above the surface of water and then sinking in water increases speed the entire way down to the bottom. While above the water, (ignoring aerodynamic effects), the object will have the acceleration of gravity. The speed increases every moment it falls. Entering the water, the acceleration drops due to the buoyant force opposing the gravitational force. However, there is still a downward acceleration and thus the speed increases, albeit at a slower pace.

You said you couldn't understand how that graph you posted meshed with an increasing unemployment rate. You are making the mistake thinking that the speed of the object will decrease upon entering the water. The speed doesn't decrease. The acceleration does.

Stop with the bad analogies and insults both of you. I took the graph and applied it back to the original context and showed Obama did nothing to fix the economy. Stop personalizing this. Calling him stupid in ten different ways in no fashion changes the fact that Obama spent $787 billion+ to achieve absolutely nothing by his own projections and anticipated outcomes.

I thought you endorsed science and having a smart president. If something isn't predictive or falsifiable, then it is just religious dogma in different clothing. Obama clearly predicted an outcome for the stimulus and it failed to materialize. The prediction matches exactly the outcome of those who declared the economy would eventually recover but that the stimulus would MAKE IT WORSE. It is following exactly the pattern of that prediction. Obama's claims have been proven false and calling people stupid while using them makes you look doubly bad.

Stop with the bad analogies and insults both of you. I took the graph and applied it back to the original context and showed Obama did nothing to fix the economy. Stop personalizing this. Calling him stupid in ten different ways in no fashion changes the fact that Obama spent $787 billion+ to achieve absolutely nothing by his own projections and anticipated outcomes.

I thought you endorsed science and having a smart president. If something isn't predictive or falsifiable, then it is just religious dogma in different clothing. Obama clearly predicted an outcome for the stimulus and it failed to materialize. The prediction matches exactly the outcome of those who declared the economy would eventually recover but that the stimulus would MAKE IT WORSE. It is following exactly the pattern of that prediction. Obama's claims have been proven false and calling people stupid while using them makes you look doubly bad.

If Obama did nothing to improve the trend, his graph wouldn't look like a V ( \\/ ). If he continued to cause as much damage as Bush it would look like a straight line going down ( \\ ). If he stopped the damage with no improvement, it would look have just flattened out at the bottom ( \\_ ).

The fact that you don't see that under Obama the increase in rate of unemployment has fully reversed only reflects on your inability to look at the data and understand rates of change.

If Obama did nothing to improve the trend, his graph wouldn't look like a V ( \\/ ). If he continued to cause as much damage as Bush it would look like a straight line going down ( \\ ). If he stopped the damage with no improvement, it would look have just flattened out at the bottom ( \\_ ).

The fact that you don't see that under Obama the increase in rate of unemployment has fully reversed only reflects on your inability to look at the data and understand rates of change.

Wrong, double wrong. His own chart, which I posted above, noted that the natural trend was for a V. Look at the predictions right there labeled WITHOUT RECOVERY PLAN. It is false to claim there would have been no recovery without the plan. That was never the predicted case. As I noted above, there was no scenario where we never recovered or employment never recovered. The stimulus was about how deep the downturn would be, not how long. Both scenarios claimed 5% unemployment and full recovery by Q1 of 2014. There is no predicted scenario from anyone that reflects what you claim. There is no scenario where unemployment went up to 9-10% and simply stayed there forever. aka (\\_). Look at the graph used to sell the stimulus. It showed that with no action, the economy would recover and unemployment would return to 5%. It is right there as a line graph called without recovery plan.

To apply the bad analogy, it was like we were promised $787 billion+ dollars of water buoyancy and when the bullet fell at a rate reflecting the fact that it was still hitting nothing but air, we are now told that air is water. The recovery plan line in the chart is supposed to reflect that buoyancy and if someone were claiming everything should be fixed now, you would completely have a point. Instead you are upset and calling names because people won't believe that air and water are the same thing. We were supposed to receive the buoyancy of 8% unemployment for our $787 billion+. Instead we showed no slowing in the acceleration, quite the opposite. For our $787 billion+, we had a vacuum created and even loss the deceleration associated with the air.

It's just not supported by a corresponding change in unemployment initial claims or continued claims, which is why I included that info.

Be my guest - use the official numbers and support the graph.

After all, you said "it's quite simple".

Trust me, I'm absolutely sure they can't support an argument that there has been a change in job loss when there's no change in the numbers of people still signing up for and being on unemployment.

My god, it's just going over your heads. The graph is not a graph of job loss. It is a graph of the change of the rate of job loss. It is a graph of the change of the rate of job loss. Jobs are being lost (much) less quickly, to the point that they might not be being lost at all within the next few months if the trend continues.

Again, for all you who are either too distracted by partisanship or too intellectually dishonest to admit it, the graph shows quite clearly that jobs are being lost much less quickly than they were under the Bush administration. In fact, job loss has nearly stopped, and indeed it did, briefly, for the seasonally adjusted numbers for November '09 (that's where the graph goes above zero). That's what it shows, and that's what it was intended to show. The graph doesn't claim that jobs are not being lost. It was never intended to show that.

Ah, so the legend "U.S. Job Loss" is what, exactly? The y-axis title "job loss" and the numbers there aren't actually counting lost jobs!

That explains so much...

... about you. And it explains so much about this administration.

Quote:

Jobs are being lost (much) less quickly

That explains why people aren't filing as many initial claims!

oh, wait...

Quote:

...the graph shows quite clearly that jobs are being lost much less quickly than they were under the Bush administration.

I know that is what the graph claims. What i'm trying to understand is how, when it attributes the statistics to the DOL, the DOL info doesn't support those claims.

I'm of the opinion that when someone loses a job, they file a claim for unemployment. At that time, the claim is classified as an "initial claim". A job has been lost, so "job loss" would increment by one. When the claim is submitted for the next period, it gets counted as a "continued claim". That's not a complete picture of the job market, since there are folks that no longer have unemployment coverage, but when strictly considering job loss those numbers aren't necessarily relevant. If anyone can show how any of the numbers from the DOL can support the graph I'd sure like to see it.

If there were less job loss, there would be less initial claims. If they wanted to show jobs in general, they might offset any increase in initial claims with decreases in continued claims, and while that wouldn't be strictly correct, it would give a general indicator and I'd be OK with that. I'd be OK even if the freaking trend in unemployment claims matched the graph even if the numbers themselves didn't necessarily match. However, the DOL stats don't support any of these conditions - initial claims and continued claims for April and May, for instance, don't show the near 40% change in jobs that the graph indicates.

"it's quite simple", yet neither you nor anyone else can use the actual stats to support the graph.

My god, it's just going over your heads. The graph is not a graph of job loss. It is a graph of the change of the rate of job loss. It is a graph of the change of the rate of job loss. Jobs are being lost (much) less quickly, to the point that they might not be being lost at all within the next few months if the trend continues.

Again, for all you who are either too distracted by partisanship or too intellectually dishonest to admit it, the graph shows quite clearly that jobs are being lost much less quickly than they were under the Bush administration. In fact, job loss has nearly stopped, and indeed it did, briefly, for the seasonally adjusted numbers for November '09 (that's where the graph goes above zero). That's what it shows, and that's what it was intended to show. The graph doesn't claim that jobs are not being lost. It was never intended to show that.

Ok, tell you what. Either you or BR. Show the method used to generate the Graph. You don't have to redo it, just show the method they used to generate the graph. It should be easily reproducible, right? From there we can know exactly what the graph is trying to show. If they have published the method then that will make the question even easier. Seems to me, however, that there is some statistical funny business going on here...

NoahJ"It is unwise to be too sure of one's own wisdom. It is healthy to be reminded that the strongest might weaken and the wisest might err." - Mahatma Gandhi

Ah, so the legend "U.S. Job Loss" is what, exactly? The y-axis title "job loss" and the numbers there aren't actually counting lost jobs!

That explains so much...

... about you. And it explains so much about this administration.

That explains why people aren't filing as many initial claims!

oh, wait...

I know that is what the graph claims. What i'm trying to understand is how, when it attributes the statistics to the DOL, the DOL info doesn't support those claims.

I'm of the opinion that when someone loses a job, they file a claim for unemployment. At that time, the claim is classified as an "initial claim". A job has been lost, so "job loss" would increment by one. When the claim is submitted for the next period, it gets counted as a "continued claim". That's not a complete picture of the job market, since there are folks that no longer have unemployment coverage, but when strictly considering job loss those numbers aren't necessarily relevant. If anyone can show how any of the numbers from the DOL can support the graph I'd sure like to see it.

If there were less job loss, there would be less initial claims. If they wanted to show jobs in general, they might offset any increase in initial claims with decreases in continued claims, and while that wouldn't be strictly correct, it would give a general indicator and I'd be OK with that. I'd be OK even if the freaking trend in unemployment claims matched the graph even if the numbers themselves didn't necessarily match. However, the DOL stats don't support any of these conditions - initial claims and continued claims for April and May, for instance, don't show the near 40% change in jobs that the graph indicates.

"it's quite simple", yet neither you nor anyone else can use the actual stats to support the graph.

Quote:

Ah, so the legend "U.S. Job Loss" is what, exactly? The y-axis title "job loss" and the numbers there aren't actually counting lost jobs!

Actually it's title is : UNEMPLOYMENT RATE WITH AND WITHOUT THE RECOVERY PLAN

That makes it a graph of comparitive job loss in the context of the recovery plan. Something totally different.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

I suppose here's where someone intellectually dishonest would try to use your mistake against you. I'll just reiterate - this graph is being put out by Obama's folks and it's a lie. It attempts to continue the "It's Still Bush's fault" meme.

I guess folks want to still bash Bush, but I hope that after this they'll realize that Obama now owns the mess and his administration is lying about the jobs situation.

First, there is NO evidence that Obama's actions have made the situation better than it would have been. That is yet another Democratic talking point--"if we hadn't acted, we'd be in a depression! We saved the economy!" Of course, there is no evidence of this. The real "saving" of the economy was, if anything, due to TARP--a program instituted under the Bush admin.

You are also saying here that Bush still has influence on what is going on, so it is still Bush's fault.

I suppose here's where someone intellectually dishonest would try to use your mistake against you. I'll just reiterate - this graph is being put out by Obama's folks and it's a lie. It attempts to continue the "It's Still Bush's fault" meme.

I guess folks want to still bash Bush, but I hope that after this they'll realize that Obama now owns the mess and his administration is lying about the jobs situation.

Quote:

I guess folks want to still bash Bush.......

Of course they do! 8 recent years vs. 1 you do the math. By your own admission ( from past posts ) this problem was brewing a long time ago. Yes Obama is in the process of taking ownership however Bush's time with this particular problem is still much longer.
There's no way around that until Obama's been in office two terms.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination

So you are saying that the president has a real impact on the economy (with TARP). That can only mean that he also is responsible for what happened before TARP. You are confirming that those massive job losses were indeed 100% Bush's making. I agree with you.

What? I'm not talking about assigning blame just because someone happens to be President at the time. I'm talking about analyzing specific actions and policies. Obama's stimulus has not been effective. TARP appears to have had some positive impact, and is actually being repaid (as opposed to stimulus funds).

Quote:

If private companies get government contracts like in 100% of road work and utility contracts how do you title these jobs?

It's not "100%" of road work. That's the first thing. Secondly, these are only temporary jobs. They are not jobs created by the private sector as a result of growth in their business naturally. It's not Coca-Cola opening a new bottling plant because it needs more capacity. It's Bumble Township getting a $50,000 grant to repave 1/2 mile of road. They may go out an hire Ray's Paving to do the project. Then its over. Not a single job created.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BR

So TARP worked, the stimulus didn't. No jobs were saved. We're a heathen country. Just making sure I got your viewpoints down.

TARP probably worked to some extent, at least as far as I can tell. The stimulus didn't "work" and won't. It may have temporarily saved some jobs. We do have some heathens...not sure we're a heathen country, but it made me chuckle.

Quote:

So, had those automakers been allowed to completely fail, think the remaining workers who survived the first rounds of layoffs would still have jobs?

They weren't going to go Chapter 7. They might have had to declare bankruptcy. That doesn't mean they would go under. The employees who kept their jobs in this case ARE the problem, or at least part of it.

Quote:

Think the banks who would have failed would have magically kept paying their employees?

That's not from the stimulus, friend. It's from TARP.

Quote:

Agree or disagree with the idea of saving these companies, but being all silly and putting saved in quotes and italicizing "some" and claiming no private sector jobs were saved is absurd. Utterly absurd.

I emphasized it because the stimulus did save some jobs. Some. They were mostly in government and/or were temporary.

I was going to say Hyperbole and try to figure out how to make you pronounce it with an upward lilt, but it doesn't really work very well over this medium. Instead, BOOM, HEADSHOT to your ridiculous assertion.[/QUOTE]

Really, BR..you're defending the stimulus when its utterly indefensible in so many ways. It's not even Keynesian for christ's sake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

I'm guessing you're saying we can't get out of this economic downturn by spending. Tell that to the people who were around during WWII.

That's a bit different. In WWII, we actually manufactured things. Companies also improved their balance sheets dramatically. We unleashed our industrial capacity. Afterwards, we needed to build housing and provide products for hundreds of thousands of soldiers returning from war. We weren't throwing money at state and local governments to "save" jobs.

Quote:

Besides we're talking about the downturn. That you can get out of by increased spending. For the debt question we have to do what we did last time and tighten our belts and pay for things. That can only happen after we get out of the recession. Two different things.

Agreed that it's two different things. For the downturn, I'm not sure I agree that spending will work. It hasn't before, other than the aforementioned WWII economy (though as mentioned that was a very different kind of spendings). Tax cuts have shown much better effect in getting us out of recessions. As for debt, well...we do need to tighten our belts and pay for things. I'd like to see what you'd cut, though.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tonton

If Obama did nothing to improve the trend, his graph wouldn't look like a V ( \\/ ). If he continued to cause as much damage as Bush it would look like a straight line going down ( \\ ). If he stopped the damage with no improvement, it would look have just flattened out at the bottom ( \\_ ).

Yes, yes. "Cause as much damage as Bush." Meanwhile, you can't demonstrate what Bush DID to "cause damage."

Quote:

The fact that you don't see that under Obama the increase in rate of unemployment has fully reversed only reflects on your inability to look at the data and understand rates of change.

I don't think anyone expected a full turnaround by now. I do think that there's no reason to believe what we're doing is working. I do think that Obama and team had to be completely stupid to believe that unemployment would not go above 8% by now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wormhole

You are also saying here that Bush still has influence on what is going on, so it is still Bush's fault.

SDW2001: It's still Bush's fault

That doesn't even make sense.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

My god, it's just going over your heads. The graph is not a graph of job loss. It is a graph of the change of the rate of job loss. It is a graph of the change of the rate of job loss. Jobs are being lost (much) less quickly, to the point that they might not be being lost at all within the next few months if the trend continues.

It's not going over anyone's head. Rate of job loss is related to the unemployment rate. The slowing of job loss is why the unemployment rate has stalled out at or around 10%. The point was, and remains that with the Obama stimulus, it was supposed to slow and stall out at around 8%. The point was and also remains that without the stimulus it was supposed to slow and stall out at around 9% and the level at amount of time that the job market was supposed to take to recover was supposed to be longer.

There is no scenario where job losses remained large and never ending. You are giving Obama credit for a scenario that never did exist and never would exist.

Quote:

Again, for all you who are either too distracted by partisanship or too intellectually dishonest to admit it, the graph shows quite clearly that jobs are being lost much less quickly than they were under the Bush administration. In fact, job loss has nearly stopped, and indeed it did, briefly, for the seasonally adjusted numbers for November '09 (that's where the graph goes above zero). That's what it shows, and that's what it was intended to show. The graph doesn't claim that jobs are not being lost. It was never intended to show that.

What the graph shows is classic for a recession. The graphs shows imbalances being corrected within the economy. Those imbalances would have corrected and people would eventually go back to work REGARDLESS of what Obama or Bush did. They don't go back to work in their old jobs because those are related to the imbalance but new areas of need are generated and they go to work there. Again this is true FOR EVERY RECESSION. The graph shows nothing more than that. There is no graph where everyone lays it down, never works again, and just dies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimmac

Of course they do! 8 recent years vs. 1 you do the math. By your own admission ( from past posts ) this problem was brewing a long time ago. Yes Obama is in the process of taking ownership however Bush's time with this particular problem is still much longer.
There's no way around that until Obama's been in office two terms.

Wrong. Obama could have brought the bipartisanship he promised. In this particular matter, while I still would have disagreed with it, he could have put together a true stimulus plan to help displaced workers. Most of the workers were in the construction field. He could have put together plenty of shovel ready work and it would have passed easily. Republicans made dozens of attempts to separate the shovel ready work (about 15% of the entire stimulus last I recall) from the "pay off the Democratic constituencies and grow dependency" portions of the stimulus (about 85%.)

Obama chose his path. It was expensive, ineffective and partisan and he should be judged by the very results he promised.

So that's why Bush never made victory conditions for our two wars. If you don't set a goal, you can't ever fail to reach it!

It wasn't a goal. We were told that without the stimulus, X would happen. With the stimulus, Y would happen. Then X happened anyway...and it was Bush's fault. We were also told uring the campaign that the economy was The Worst Since The Great Depression™. Then, we were told that "everybody underestimated how bad the economy was."

Riiiiiight.

I can only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow doesn't look good either.

It's easy to pile on Joe Biden. Vice presidents, after all, acquire reputations in Washington they never really shake. Dick Cheney was Darth Vader, and now Joe Biden is the embarrassing uncle you try to keep away from the microphone.

Neither is entirely fair. Still, when Mr. Biden claims success for a victory won by a surge he and Barack Obama opposed, you wonder what he's up to. When this same genius is then dispatched to counter Mr. Cheney on the weekend talk shows, you wonder what the administration is up to.

Start with Mr. Biden's first whopper: telling CNN's Larry King last week that "one of the great achievements of this administration" may well be a democratic Iraq. "You're going to see a stable government in Iraq that is actually moving toward a representative government. . . . I've been impressed how they have been deciding to use the political process rather than guns to settle their differences."